The Iowa Senate was still in session Thursday after holding an all-night floor debate on a bill that would limit collective bargaining for Iowa's 184,000 public employees.

Democratic lawmakers were pressing for changes to Senate File 213 with a series of amendments while Republicans were standing firm to keep their bill intact. The Iowa House is considering a companion bill - House File 291 -- and is expected to resume debate sometime Thursday morning.

After spending all day Wednesday at the Iowa Capitol and then debating overnight there as well, Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, stood on the Senate floor at 6:11 a.m. Thursday and loudly proclaimed, "Gooooood Morning, Des Moines....The sun is about to come up. It's time to get up and milk the cows and get the work done. We have 10 amendments down and 42 to go."

He proceeded to offer an amendment to help employees of school districts, community colleges, and universities, and lawmakers began debating its merits.

House and Senate Republicans hold majorities in both chambers and there is little doubt they will pass the collective bargaining legislation, sending it to Gov. Terry Branstad, who is expected to sign it. But Senate GOP leaders decided to push ahead Wednesday night, determined to stay as long as necessary to finish their work on the bill. The House also debated the bill Wednesday, but adjourned at 10:10 p.m., agreeing to return Thursday.

In a key vote Wednesday, the Senate rejected a proposal to scrap the legislation and instead establish a committee to study public employees' health insurance costs, which is one of the primary issues driving the bills. The Senate also turned down a proposal to have Iowa's public employees comply with the same rules as private-sector workers who are protected by the National Labor Relations Act.

In the House, a Democratic amendment to strike the entire bill was rejected by majority Republicans.

House and Senate Democrats pointed to large numbers of public employees who have flooded lawmakers with emails and clogged the Iowa Capitol's phones with messages against the legislation. But Republican lawmakers said they are repeatedly receiving reassurances from constituents and local government officials in support of making changes to collective bargaining for public employees.

Sen. Jason Schultz, R-Schleswig, defended the bill as necessary to help Iowa taxpayers. "I think we have a framework of Iowa law now that lays on the back of our local officials and that forces them to do things that they don’t want to do."

But Democratic legislators continued Wednesday to passionately argue in floor debates in favor of the current law, which they said supports middle-class jobs. They also said provisions in place since the 1970s are still providing labor peace for public employees working in state government, cities, counties and school districts.

Republicans countered the current law is tilted in favor of unions at taxpayers' expense and the legislation will restore control to local government officials.

Under the similar House and Senate bills, most public-sector union contract negotiations would be limited only to base wages. Unions would be banned from negotiating with their employers over issues such as health insurance, evaluation procedures, staff reduction and leaves of absence for political purposes. However, public safety workers such as police and firefighters would have a broader list of issues to be considered in contract talks. But all unions would be barred from having union dues deducted from public employees' paychecks and unions would need to be re-certified prior to every contract negotiation.

Democrats in both chambers have filed dozens of proposed amendments to the bills. Their debate has focused on efforts to change the GOP proposals, which were unveiled last week after closed-door talks among Republican legislative leaders. Most, if not all of the Democratic amendments, are expected to be voted down by the Republican majorities.

Here are some topics in the debate that arose Wednesday:

Health insurance

Sen. Nate Boulton, D-Des Moines, offered an amendment to strike the collective bargaining bill and instead establish a public employee health insurance study committee. He said the biggest outcry against the current collective bargaining law is the high cost of health insurance for public employees.

"Let's work together to find a way to solve your concerns to this by bringing employees in and working with management," Boulton said.

Schultz, who is the Senate bill's floor manager, argued against the amendment, saying it would eliminate proposed reforms in collective bargaining that are important to more than 3 million Iowans.

The amendment was defeated on a 29-21 vote after a debate that lasted three hours. All Republicans voted against the amendment and all Democrats were in support of the amendment, along with one independent.

Buy Photo

Sen. Pam Jochum, D-Dubuque, wears a silver ribbon to show solidarity with Iowa public employees during a debate on a collective bargaining bill. Many Democratic lawmakers are wearing similar silver ribbons at the Iowa Capitol.(Photo: William Petroski/The Register)

State officials say most state employees pay $20 a month for their share of health insurance premiums, while many private-sector employees in Iowa pay thousands of dollars annually for health insurance.

Sen. Mark Chelgren, R-Ottumwa, said the changes proposed under the legislation ensure all public employees will still be offered health insurance. But Sen. William Dotzler, D-Waterloo, countered that there is no guarantee what type of health insurance will be provided or the costs involved for public employees.

Sen. Joe Bolkcom, D-Iowa City, said public employees deserve the same health care security as other Iowans, warning of dire consequences if the proposed legislation is approved. “This has the potential to bankrupt families. People could die because of the changes being proposed. Why are so many people concerned? Because you have no replacement plan," he said.

Sen. Jake Chapman, R-Adel, strongly disagreed with Democrats, saying that in many cases Iowa's public employees who are not represented by unions have health insurance provided at a similar or better cost than health insurance provided to union-represented public employees.

"To suggest for one minute that public employees have to have collective bargaining to have health insurance is just disingenuous," Chapman said. Democrats said non-union benefits are closely related to union-negotiated benefits that set a standard for Iowa's public employees.

Tammy Wawro, president of the Iowa Education Association and Doug Neys, president of Iowa professional fire fighters speak during the public hearing on Iowa's collective bargaining law on Monday night, Feb. 13, 2017, in the Iowa Capitol. Kelsey Kremer/The Register

Gretchen Tegeler, president of the Taxpayers Association of Central Iowa speaks during the public hearing on Iowa's collective bargaining law on Monday night, Feb. 13, 2017, in the Iowa Capitol. Kelsey Kremer/The Register

Tammy Wawro, president of the Iowa Education Association speaks during the public hearing on Iowa's collective bargaining law on Monday night, Feb. 13, 2017, in the Iowa Capitol. Kelsey Kremer/The Register

Doug Neys, president of Iowa professional fire fighters speaks during the public hearing on Iowa's collective bargaining law on Monday night, Feb. 13, 2017, in the Iowa Capitol. Kelsey Kremer/The Register

Danny Homan, president of AFSCME Iowa Council 61 speaks during the public hearing on Iowa's collective bargaining law and with him a box of more than 7,000 petitions from Iowans on Monday night, Feb. 13, 2017, in the Iowa Capitol. Kelsey Kremer/The Register

Clozelle Harris, a retired teacher from Waterloo, takes a photo of the crowd gathered inside the Iowa Capitol for a public hearing on proposed changes to the state's collective bargaining law on Monday, Feb. 13, 2017. Harris came to Des Moines today because she is concerned about Iowa's future teachers. Kelsey Kremer/The Register

Tim Barber, of Nodaway and Mick Moorman, of Centerville, hold a sign inside the Iowa Capitol for a public hearing on proposed changes to the state's collective bargaining law on Monday, Feb. 13, 2017, in Des Moines. Kelsey Kremer/The Register

Cole Herold, of Indianola holds a sign inside the Iowa Capitol for a public hearing on proposed changes to the state's collective bargaining law on Monday, Feb. 13, 2017, in Des Moines. Kelsey Kremer/The Register

Elizabeth Dinschel of Coralville chants into a megaphone Monday, Feb. 13, 2017, as they watch a video feed of Iowa legislators hold a public hearing to discuss proposed changes to Iowa's collective bargaining laws at the Iowa State Capitol in Des Moines. Scott Morgan/For the Register

Elementary school music teacher Nathan Kelley of Iowa City listens to a live feed of a hearing with demonstrators Monday, Feb. 13, 2017, as Iowa legislators hold a public hearing to discuss proposed changes to Iowa's collective bargaining laws at the Iowa State Capitol in Des Moines. Scott Morgan/For the Register

Sara Andre of West Des Moines demonstrates with state employees Monday, Feb. 13, 2017, as Iowa legislators hold a public hearing to discuss proposed changes to Iowa's collective bargaining laws at the Iowa State Capitol in Des Moines. Scott Morgan/For the Register

Landon Elkind of Coralville chants into a megaphone with demonstrators Monday, Feb. 13, 2017, as Iowa legislators hold a public hearing to discuss proposed changes to Iowa's collective bargaining laws at the Iowa State Capitol in Des Moines. Scott Morgan/For the Register

Demonstrators gather in the rotunda Monday, Feb. 13, 2017, as Iowa legislators hold a public hearing to discuss proposed changes to Iowa's collective bargaining laws at the Iowa State Capitol in Des Moines. Scott Morgan/For the Register

Evie Smith, 11, of Ankeny, looks on a phone as her mother, Jessica Smith, a middle school teacher, demonstrates Monday, Feb. 13, 2017, as Iowa legislators hold a public hearing to discuss proposed changes to Iowa's collective bargaining laws at the Iowa State Capitol in Des Moines. Scott Morgan/For the Register

Angel Hernandez, 6, of Iowa City, holds a sign as he demonstrates with his mother Ana Cano (left) Monday, Feb. 13, 2017, as Iowa legislators hold a public hearing to discuss proposed changes to Iowa's collective bargaining laws at the Iowa State Capitol in Des Moines. Scott Morgan/For the Register

Iowa State Patrol Captain Mark Logsdon looks at a list of speakers as he watches the door Monday, Feb. 13, 2017, as Iowa legislators hold a public hearing to discuss proposed changes to Iowa's collective bargaining laws at the Iowa State Capitol in Des Moines. Scott Morgan/For the Register

Pro-union demonstrators hold signs and chant as supporters of Americans for Prosperity-Iowa leave Monday, Feb. 13, 2017, after Iowa legislators held a public hearing to discuss proposed changes to Iowa's collective bargaining laws at the Iowa State Capitol in Des Moines. Scott Morgan/For the Register

Demonstrators and supporters watch a live video feed Monday, Feb. 13, 2017, as Iowa legislators hold a public hearing to discuss proposed changes to Iowa's collective bargaining laws at the Iowa State Capitol in Des Moines. Scott Morgan/For the Register

Mark Busch of Des Moines, a high school science teacher, right, demonstrates Feb. 13 as Iowa legislators hold a public hearing to discuss changes to Iowa's collective bargaining laws at the Capitol in Des Moines. Scott Morgan/For the Register

Sandy Opstvedt of Story City (from left), Vicki Miller of North Liberty and Lynn White of Tiffin hold signs as they demonstrate Monday, Feb. 13, 2017, as Iowa legislators hold a public hearing to discuss proposed changes to Iowa's collective bargaining laws at the Iowa State Capitol in Des Moines. Scott Morgan/For the Register

Serving Iowans

After a week of demonstrations and protests around the state and at the Capitol, House Democrats argued that Republicans are ignoring the will of Iowa voters by advancing the collective-bargaining legislation.

Rep. Jo Oldson, D-Des Moines, said Iowans discussed their concerns with her as she campaigned ahead of the November elections.

“Not once did I hear anybody say, ‘Hey, that collective bargaining law. It’s not working. You need to fix it.’" Oldson said. “Not once. But I’m sure hearing from people now. I bet you’re all hearing from people now, I’ve no doubt in my mind. I’ve gotten more emails, more phone calls on this piece of legislation than I think I have on any other piece of legislation in the 14 years I’ve been here.”

Democrats also pointed to Monday’s public hearing, which drew more than 1,100 people to register to speak against the bill through an online tracking system. About two dozen registered to speak in support of it.

Rep. Mary Mascher, D-Iowa City, said she’s receiving phone calls from constituents across the state, not just in her own district.

“They're contacting me because they believe you no longer are listening to them,” she told Republicans.

But House Republicans have argued that those who support the changes are communicating to them their support privately.

“At public hearings you’re going to hear predominantly from those who are opposed to something,” Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, told reporters Tuesday. “The folks that, you know, are good with what you’re doing or support what you’re doing are not the ones that are going to make the trip up here. I’ve also heard from school boards back home, I’ve heard from lots of folks back home, I’ve heard from school superintendents, community college presidents, county supervisors, lots of folks like that who support our efforts.”

Flexibility for Employers

Republicans and some business organizations have argued that public employers are hamstrung by union-negotiated employment requirements and need more flexibility to manage their workforce.

Rep. Dawn Pettengill, R-Mount Auburn, read emails from constituents supporting the changes, including one from an Iowan who said change is necessary to curb the rising costs of school districts.

“As a school board member, we can’t continue to keep our district solvent without either increased state funding for schools or the ability to truly negotiate with our employees,” Pettengill read from the email. “We need to be able to do a better job of controlling our costs, and this bill will help with that.”

Holt said that in addition to helping employers reduce costs, it would give them the ability to provide incentives to their highest performers “in a way that we currently cannot.”

“All these management tools that we’re going to be providing to our locally elected officials to better be able to manage their agencies, I think, is going to create great opportunities,” he said.

But Rep. Wesley Breckenridge, D-Newton, said that when the Legislature underfunds state agencies, public workers will be the ones to pay the price as those agencies seek to balance their budgets.

“When you take $5.5 million away from corrections, where do you think that’s going to go when you gut collective bargaining?” he asked. “How do you think that’s going to impact them, their families and the state of Iowa?”

Private-sector bargaining rights

Senate Democrats proposed something often urged by Republicans: Why not treat government like a business?

Boulton offered an amendment that would give Iowa's public employees the same rights as private-sector workers who belong to unions, except public employees would still be prohibited from striking. He said the Republican bill would place Iowa public employees in uncharted waters if they want to belong to unions, but his amendment would allow the labor practices successfully used by some of Iowa's largest employers.

"Collective bargaining works in the private sector, just like it already works in the public sector," said Hogg, who backed Boulton. "For those who question it, let’s at least let it work like it does in the private sector in this state.”

Schultz spoke against the proposal, saying it would eliminate benefits and reforms from legislation that will update Chapter 20, the section of state law that governs collective bargaining for public employees.However, the amendment was defeated on a partisan vote with Republicans all opposed.

Proposed Study Committee

Sen. David Johnson, an independent from Ocheyedan, proposed scrapping the Republicans' bill and appointing a study committee under the Iowa Public Employment Relations Board. The panel would study the effectiveness and efficiency of the collective bargaining process on the delivery of public services. It would be composed of representatives of state and local government units and public employees' unions and the report would be due in January 2018.

"I don't like this debate, but this is not the Republican Party that I grew up with; people who knew how to work together," said Johnson, who quit the GOP last year in a protest against Donald Trump's presidential candidacy.

Sen. Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines, spoke in support of the amendment and called the GOP's legislation mean-spirited. "I think what we are doing is wrong and I think we need to say morally wrong — un-Christian."

Schultz urged a no vote, and Republicans rejected the amendment as the debate continued Wednesday night..

But a string of Democrats criticized the bill before the vote. This included Bolkcom, who accused Gov. Branstad of acting like a "bully" who is trying to "settle a score" with labor unions by supporting the legislation. Bolkcom said Iowa legislators can't do their jobs without public employees and he complained that Republicans are conducting a "war on the public worker in Iowa." Branstad spokesman Ben Hammes said he didn't want to respond to "petty comments" by Bolkcom, adding the governor is focused on restoring fairness to Iowa taxpayers and giving local officials greater flexibility in managing resources.

Public Safety

Senate Democrats offered an amendment to classify all types of public workers as public safety employees, which would allow them to negotiate contracts on a broader scale of issues. Democrats said many public employees who are not police officers and firefighters also face danger on their jobs, including correctional officers, nurses, mental health workers, emergency medical technicians, snowplow operators, teachers, social workers, school bus drivers and others.

“What we are really talking about is haves and have nots, and it is arbitrary to classify some public employees as having hazardous jobs and others not to have hazardous occupations," Boulton said. Democrats contended there was no statistical basis to separate firefighters and police from other workers, nd they claimed Republicans were giving them a special status in a divide and conquer strategy.

Schultz opposed the amendment, which was rejected by Republicans early Thursday morning. He said Republicans decided to place police and firefighters into a special category based on the idea that they work in unregulated dangerous environments. "We worked to make this as narrow as possible because we could see how it could grow," he added.

Sen. Brad Zaun, R-Urbandale, defended the protections for law enforcement officers, pointing out that five police officers in the Des Moines area have died in shooting incidents and vehicle crashes. "I would ask you to find a class of public employees who have taken a bigger hit and died while doing it," he said. But Boulton pointed out that the Republicans' bill is opposed by the Iowa State Police Association.